Good Climate Hunting (D. J. Trump, writer, director)

June 1st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.











189 Responses to “Good Climate Hunting (D. J. Trump, writer, director)”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Just think of all the poor melting snowflakes out there! How could DJT be so insensitive?

    • Colin Henderson says:

      I suppose the melting snowflakes will cause flooding, proving that the Paris Accord could have prevented climate change.

    • Nate says:

      I keep hearing this ‘no measurable difference’ meme. But who actually calculated this?

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/paris-climate-change-guide.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

      Shows a chart of the difference in atm co2, seems rather a dramatic difference.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Nate, maybe this will help you sleep better.

        More CO2, more grapes, better grapes, cheaper grapes, more wine, better wine, cheaper wine.

        Sleep well, it’s going to be okay.

      • richard verney says:

        The Paris Accord was never going to have any material impact with or without America. Here is the projection of the effect of the Paris Accord assessed on RCP8.5 scenario,

        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/paris-accord-impact.jpg

        RCP8.5 is the most extreme scenario, and as you are no doubt aware, all the models are running hot. If one made the projection at a more realistic CO” sensitivity figure, one would not see anything at all.

        The Paris Accord is just smoke and mirrors which achieves nothing at great expense tio the US and Europe. Even Hansen recognised that the Paris Accord achieves nothing and that is why he called it a [email protected]

      • Roy Spencer says:

        Nate, here are the numbers, peer reviewed and published, from someone who believes the IPCC’s forecasts: http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

        • Nate says:

          Lomborg is not a climate scientist and his analyses are often discredited…

        • barry says:

          “The” numbers? I didn’t know Lomborg’s views are oracular.

        • Nate says:

          Even if we accept this analysis as correct, the point is if we are in a vehicle headed toward a cliff, the first step is to move your foot to the brake.

          What you guys are saying is that first step is pointless, since it will have accomplished so little.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, you and barry must live on a very high cliff. The rest of the world is under 200 feet of water. If you go off the cliff, just be able to swim.

            And, the water is pleasantly warm….

          • Rob says:

            Nate, there is no cliff, you’re still hooked into the matrix. Here, take this red pill, you’ll snap out of it, come be with us, we have cookies.

      • Mike M. says:

        Nate asked: “But who actually calculated this?”

        Someone with no regard for the truth. The Times graph shows 52 GT in 2015. The actual number was 36 GT. A pessimistic extrapolation to 2030 would be a bit over 40 GT, the Times graph shows 68 GT. van Vuuren et al. (2011), the paper on which the IPCC scenarios are based says “Most non-climate policy scenarios, in fact, predict emissions of the order of 15 to 20 GtC” for 2100. That would be 55-73 GT CO2, the range shown in the Times graph between Paris and the alleged business as usual. The Times graph is a total lie.

        • Nate says:

          It is a pain to figure out exactly what they are doing, but looks like 52 is CO2 equivalent, and includes all other gases and probably land-use changes.

          You can try to figure it out from the source here:

          https://www.climateinteractive.org/

          Theyre study disagrees with Lomborg. They find 1.1 C reduction due to Paris

          • Mike M. says:

            Nate wrote: “but looks like 52 is CO2 equivalent, and includes all other gases and probably land-use changes.”

            But that number is something like 42 GT.

            Nate wrote: “You can try to figure it out from the source here”

            Maybe, but not, so far as I can see, with any reasonable effort. And why would I want to trust what seems to be a highly political source?

            Nate wrote: “Theyre study disagrees with Lomborg. They find 1.1 C reduction due to Paris”.

            I suppose you mean this: https://www.climateinteractive.org/insights/response-to-white-house-talking-points-on-paris-agreement/
            “Our business as usual, reference scenario leads to expected warming by 2100 of 4.2C. Full implementation of current Paris pledges plus all announced mid-century strategies would reduce expected warming by 2100 to 3.3C, a difference of 0.9C.”

            But doing nothing will only produce about 1 C of further warming (a bit under 2 C compared to pre-industrial). They are using wildly inflated numbers.

            Nate wrote: “Even if we accept this analysis as correct, the point is if we are in a vehicle headed toward a cliff, the first step is to move your foot to the brake.”

            The thing is that we are NOT headed for a cliff.

            Nate wrote: “What you guys are saying is that first step is pointless, since it will have accomplished so little.”

            I think the point is that Paris is not really about what it claims to be about, since it does not really do anything to solve the alleged problem.

          • Nate says:

            ‘They are using wildly inflated numbers’.

            Hardly, the central estimate for co2 doubling is 3.5C, with the unc range extending much higher.

      • Nate says:

        The United States, Trump said, will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.

        One sentence and its contradictions, captures the essential stupidity of Trump.

        • Nate says:

          Quotes disappeared..

        • Mike M. says:

          Nate,

          You are going to have to explain the contradiction to me, since I don’t see any.

        • Rob says:

          Sounds reasonable to me Nate. I think you’ll find that the silent majority (the ones that voted him in) agree with what he just did. I just wish my country would follow suit. Riddle me this:

          If you could install cheap, clean coal fired electrical generating station in 3rd world countries, give them the ability to develop their own infrastructure and also enable them to benefit from the very same things you and I are benefiting from: heat, hydro, refrigeration, etc….would that not be money better spent in terms of saving humanity? You know what else happens? These same people aren’t in such a hurry to leave home, they get to develop their own culture in the land they grew up in. The US has denied these countries by not allowing them to build these stations because it will increase their carbon footprint. Is that not the greater evil Nate? How can you be such a hypocrite? You’ll sacrifice lives, endanger free citizens in other countries because of imported terrorism all in the name of potentially reducing the global temperature by maybe 1 degree which will have a net zero effect on anything? That is the biggest crime against humanity in my mind.

          We could solve the worlds poverty issues at a fraction of the cost by elevating these people with the same well established and clean burning technologies we all enjoy, but because of some perceived and really unproven and fabricated disaster, these people are meant to suffer? That’s just fucking terrible to my way of thinking, and you should feel the same way.

          • Nate says:

            You didnt read the agreement. It is NOT imposing any such things on developing countries.

            Trump could care less about dev countries. America first.

          • Jeff says:

            if clean coal was actually a reality, then possibly, but why coal at all ? If the third world countries even have coal deposits, mining and processing plus infrastructure is a capital-intensive process that potentially creates additional issues (health, water impacts, etc) instead of providing them with renewable capabilities would have an inverse affect.

        • barry says:

          You are going to have to explain the contradiction to me, since I dont see any.

          nonbinding… agreement imposes on our country.”

          Definitions:

          nonbinding agreement: “having no legal or binding force”

          impose: “force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone”

          • Mike M. says:

            barry wrote: “nonbinding… agreement imposes on our country.”

            I figured it was some such logically impaired “reasoning”. The agreement, if followed, would impose significant harm. The fact that it is non-binding just means that Trump could repudiate it.

            By barry’s “logic” there is no reason to for anyone to complain about Trump repudiating the Paris Agreement, since by doing so he did nothing.

          • Nate says:

            Certainly not draconian. Trump did not need to back out of it. Rather he could have simply weakened our plan.

            Instead he has encouraged others to back out. Weakened our long standing alliances. The democracies can now conclude that the US is no longer a leader of the free world, and not a reliable partner in global issues. They will write us off.

            All for what purpose? Score political points?

            His presidency is failing and he is flailing. Lashing out at enemies.

          • Nate says:

            Exactly. And each country defines its own plan. How draconian is that?

          • Nate says:

            Refering to Barrys comment.

          • Mike M. says:

            Nate says: (June 2, 2017 at 9:22 PM): “Certainly not draconian …”

            OK, so you disagree with Trump. That does not mean he contradicts himself, and nothing in your comment shows a contradiction, unless you are so full of yourself that you think that anything that disagrees with what you think constitutes a contradiction.

            For the record, I think that each of your sentences is wrong. But I don’t feel like getting into a long, pointless political debate.

          • Nate says:

            Mike, Barry explained the contradiction quite well. You dont get it? Thats a you problem.

          • Eduardo Ferreyra says:

            Nate, I can speak out about what goes on in a underdeveloped country: Argentina. We had long decades of very corrupt left leaning populist governments that has sunk us in a tremendous energy crisis, with prices skyrocketing wildly. Now, thanks to the popular belief that renewables as wind and solar can solve our problem increasing the energy production, our government has launched a wild program of wind and solar farms, believing the strong winds in Patagonia and strong sun in the Northern provinces will solve the crisis.

            There is no way solar and wind energies can help in this matter, because they believe that the real energy output is the gigawatts in their nameplate, and they refuse to see that the real energy output is barely 29% of the name plate and the solar and wind farms will require a tremendous subsidy to keep running. Otherwise, the owners of the farms cannot have a profit and would have to close down operations. They also refuse to learn from early wind projects in Patagonia, where turbines had to stop production because winds in Patagonia are extremely strong and have destroyed the turbines. Check Pico Truncado in Google.

            The only hope is that, the energy plans of our new government propose the building of two new nuclear reactors, alas, from the Chinese, despising our excellent nuclear industry that has provided smaller reactors to Australia, Algiers, Per, and Romania. The reason is one of the most influential advisors in energy is a former Greenpeace chief of anti-nuclear campaigns, anti-industry progress, that has been elected representative. The huge amount of money needed for the energy project could be used building cheaper and more effective coal and natural gas plants. We have plenty gas and coal, but only one coal plant in Patagonia, close of the coal mine. And by going ahead with this insane project, the country will have to increase dearly its by now big foreign debt. Pure green madness, and all for reducing our 0,4% of CO2 contribution to the global atmosphere…

          • Eduardo Ferreyra says:

            Nate, I will spare you the search: Pico Truncado (or wind Park Pico Truncado, “Jorge Romanutti”) is touted as one of the biggest wind projects in South America. It has now 10 turbines VENTIS, model 20-100, 100 kW each, built in Germany and generates 1MW. In two years, since 1995-1997, the park provided 4,500,068 kWh, or 4.5 MW to the national interconnected grid. The grid suffered serious unbalance that required the running of diesel generators as backups. It has not returned in energy the amount invested, and it will never do it.

          • Nate says:

            That sounds like a bad experiece. But how typical is it? Wind has been successful in many locations, such as South Dakota, where 5 TWh per year are generated.

  2. Finally a president with climate sense.

    Global warming ,next fairy tale.

  3. jimc says:

    No difference, and very heavy on penalizing the US.

  4. Rob Mitchell says:

    Watching all of the global warming worshippers go waawwwww waawwwww whaawwwwwwwwwww brings a smile to my face!

  5. E. Swanson says:

    Now that Climate Change is officially not a problem, I suppose that means we won’t need all those satellite temperature measurements. Oh, have you heard, the Rapture is due on 23 September??? Time for Dr. Roy to retire, he’s done his best, he’s achieved what he wanted and needs time to get ready for the trip to Heaven.

    • Geochemist says:

      What a comment. You are sick!

      • E. Swanson says:

        WHAT?? Do you mean that the Bible isn’t the Word of Dog, the Absolute Truth written by Her, when Genesis says the Earth was Created in Six 24 Hour Days and Revelation says IT will all go away with Believers hoisted to Heaven during the Rapture? Heck, the Big Dog needs lots of willing White Raisins to reward all those ISIS jehadi fanatics when they get to Heaven. Oh, BTW, don’t go to India and kill a cow, you might get the death penalty yourself. One man’s religion is another man’s delusion, I sez…

        • Rob says:

          Hey Dog’s are man’s best friend, you could stand to listen to a dog, they love unconditionally and don’t care about carbon footprint, and they will make you feel better about losing your favourite cause. There will be something else, don’t worry. It will get debunked too.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          E. Swanson, you have arrived at the pinnacle of intellectualism when you believe you do not need God.

          Extra credit: Do you know the difference between an “Intellectual” and a “phony intellectual”?

          Clock is ticking.

          (Jeopardy theme playing here.)

          Your time is up.

          Answer: There is no difference.

    • Good point! Near retirement age anyway. Be sure to turn off the lights on your way out, ok? No…scratch that…no need now.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        Dr. Spencer sir, I spoke (Forum post) on your behalf against the “E. Swanson” types that exist in Tesla world. They make crappy-ass remarks like what this feller did against you. I told the secular-progressive types in the Tesla Forum that you are well-versed in the glacial-interglacial periods, and that you accept the time frames of those periods.

        I hope I did not speak out of place on your behalf!

    • jimc says:

      Our part of the agreement was negotiated by a graduate of Jerimiah Wright’s Church of God Da[r]n America, and it shows.
      Now that you’ve decided definitely on ‘change’ go through the history of the medieval warming and the little ice age and tell me which “change” is for the better, and that change is always man made.

    • Now that Climate Change is officially not a problem

      There never was much evidence to support cc as a problem.

      Climate change was assumed from global warming.
      And disaster was assumed from climate change.

      And that’s just as wrong as McGovern was when he mandated dietary guidelines to eat more carbs, which, by diabetes numbers, means the government killed people because they just knew the science was settled.

    • Ric Werme says:

      For Roy, the trip to heaven isn’t “up,” it’s north to the “UP” of Michigan. πŸ™‚

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      e swanson…”Now that Climate Change is officially not a problem, I suppose that means we wont need all those satellite temperature measurements”.

      The NOAA sat data used by UAH to make data sets has uses in meteorology and related sciences. UAH did not set out to disprove global warming theory in 1979 when they asked NOAA for the data they were not using. It turned out that way. UAH noticed the atmosphere was not warming as predicted.

      The American Meteorological Society awarded medals to Roy and John Christy, along with NASA. Why would they do that if the data sets provided no use for meteorologists?

  6. SNOWREADY says:

    Paris Agreement or not. If we were gonna do something we should have done it decades ago. It’s too late now. Co2 levels are at around 410ppm. Feedback loops have kicked in. I hope the warming we see is not too much or to fast and increases world food supply.

  7. SNOWREADY says:

    The Paris Agreement was mostly about money anyway

  8. SNOWREADY says:

    The Paris Agreement is a SCAM . Time to hang up the phone.

  9. Laurens says:

    There is an important reason to be careful with fossil fuel: it is a scarce material and we will need it in the long future as a raw material for many other uses. Just burning the stuff for energy is actually a waste of such a precious material. We burned about 5%, 95% is left for the many future generations. Does CO2 increase surface temperature? Yes it does, but to what extend it explains current slightly higher surface temperatures? Who knows? It will probably take decades to solve that puzzle.

    Winning energy from renewables is definately a good thing. Our future societies will be energy driven, so we need a lot energy.

    • AaronS says:

      I agree partially, but the plastics utilize mostly different short chain molecules compared to fuels. There is no shortage of methane in the long term future. However, US transportation practice is excessive and we are wasting energy. This is where i agree with conservation. We will want fossil fuels in the future… just not oil for plastics.

      https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/ethane-cracker/

      • lewis says:

        Aaron,

        I’m under the impression we’ll have liquid hydrocarbons for transportation into the far future. In the meantime, batteries will improve and alternative methods of producing electricity will continue to evolve. Also, at some point, someone will discover how to convert cellulose to a liquid fuel, economically.

        Solar panels will improve in efficiency, windmills will continue to be put up and nuclear energy will finally get the regulatory environment to make it a long term viable energy source.

        Our problem is short term thinking – many believing they can properly dictate a command economy. Bah. Back to laissez faire capitalism and less regulations, we’ll all be better off.

        None of which is to disagree with your statement about waste. I’m one who does, but it’s easier to do that than otherwise.

  10. Stevek says:

    If c02 is such a problem just fix it with geo engineering. Done.

  11. Alberto Zaragoza Comendador says:

    This was supposed to go into an article of mine at WUWT, but just in case it doesn’t get published…

    All the stuff we’re hearing about Trump and Paris was said about Bush and Kyoto 16 years ago. Guess what happened to emissions back then?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/uu9t8vw68dnf9ig/Untitled.png?dl=0

    The US actually outperformed the EU during Bush’s years! More precisely, the US increased its CO2 efficiency (GDP divided by emissions) faster than the EU. Actual emissions increased more in the US, but that’s because its GDP grew faster; emissions / GDP is the only meaningful measure of ‘progress’ in climate.

    And it’s not only the US; for the world as a whole, Kyoto had no effect whatsoever on emissions. The emissions intensity / efficiency of GDP kept improving, but at a slower pace than before the agreement.
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/why-the-paris-accord-doesnt-matter-and-does.php
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/30/do-the-math-climate-policies-cannot-change-century-end-temperature-more-than-0-5c/

    The effect of Paris is going to be ‘non measurable’ indeed. More precisely, it will be zero.

    PS: Gavin Schmidt showed his ignorance on this very topic today, claiming that withdrawal from Kyoto set back emission reductions for years. Obviously he’s never done the math.
    https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/870238587748577280

  12. Entropic man says:

    So it has has happened. President Trump has opted to leave,or at best renegotiate, the Paris Agreement.

    The BBC reported this.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40127326

    Interestingly, they include figures from Climate Initiative on the probable impact on temperatures in 2100.

    BAU would be expected to produce 4.2C warming.

    Implementing g the Paris pledges would lead to 3.3C warming.

    Without the US the remaining pledges lead to 3.6C warming.

    The US pledges only reduce warming by 0.3C.

    Perhaps the rest of the world can get along without Trumps help for a while.

    • Alberto Zaragoza Comendador says:

      See my immediately previous message. These claims about temperature reductions are bunk. Any projection of emissions that doesn’t measure emissions intensity (or efficiency) as a function of GDP is meaningless. That happens to include pretty much every big Paris pledge, except India’s.

      Think about it for a second. Do you know how big GDP will be the rest of the century? No? Then how do you know what are the ‘business as usual’ emissions?

    • richard verney says:

      I am surprised that the BBC set out those temp figures since it shows that the effect of the US withdrawal is just 0.3degC.

      Further it shows that the Paris Accord was not a solution. The target increase is said to be +1.5degC, BAU, with no steps to reduce CO2, results in +4.2degC warming, and PARIS with all pledges including US caps the warming at +3.3degC. So even with the US the claimed dangerous level of +1.5degC of warming is well exceeded, and PARIS does very little to curb alleged dangerous temperatures being reached.

    • barry says:

      The US pledges only reduce warming by 0.3C.

      I doubt it would be even that much, but it’s really not the point of international agreements.

      Perhaps the rest of the world can get along without Trumps help for a while.

      Right-wing pollies in my country are already calling for the (right-wing) government to pull away from the Paris agreements. The US pulling out has given them brilliant ammo. “If the US is out, why should we pick up the slack?”

      That’s the thing about bilateral agreements. Once one party pulls out, particularly a major player, conviction and trust is weakened and it’s that much easier for the agreement to crumble. Trump pitches the move as purely about the US, but people who aren’t completely asleep understand that it has broader consequences, which the other countries are already noisily trying to head off with clarion declarations of unbending commitment. Expect to see more domestic politics along the lines of my country, as contrarians to the agreement (and to international co-operation in general) can now make a stronger case for walking away generously supplied by the US.

  13. David Appell says:

    The message of this post is a perfidious argument that clearly has no shame.

    Those who are against any action on climate change are too clever by half by also arguing that THIS action (Paris) isn’t enough.

    Of course, if there WERE a global agreement that limited warming to, say, 1.5 C or even reduced it to 0 C, people like Roy would be screaming their heads off about how it’s unneeded and unfair and telling us the will open up as Zeus smites us with lightning bolts.

    You can’t have it both ways, Roy.

  14. AaronS says:

    This agreement supported real solutions like nuclear. Watching places like Germany have their CO2 footprint increase (2015 and 2016) as they build coal plants to shift energy sources is frustrating and hypocritical. So i dont think this agreement was realistic for the goal and seemed more about growing wind and solar industries. That said I wish the US president clearly laid out the logic (maybe he will) rather than pulling out in what appears an emotional or irrational decision. The US need cheap energy to support manufacturing. US transportation is wasteful and excessive. Each needs addressed independently.

  15. Obama says:

    Nicely done! Touch

  16. Emeritus says:

    I have to disappoint You (mostly?) Americans on this blog.

    Trumps decision wont matter much for the climate. What the world will do, or not do, will depend on the climate development the next years. If the prognosis of MetOff hit the target, any climate debate on Trumps primitive level will be dead.

    What concerns me more, is that to many Americans seems satisfied that Your President is more cozy with Duarte the Murderer and Riyadh, the ideological hub of Sunni terrorism, than with Your Brother in Arms in Europe.

    History happens when we live it, and we dont understand much when its happening. My fear is that Trumps stupid decision today, will be a symbol of a paradigm shift, like that we had in November 1998. And that troubles me far more than any near future climate change.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Misguided climate policy was the unnecessary and dangerous paradigm shift.

      • Emeritus says:

        Dr. Spencer, I hope You are right. But I am afraid neither You or me knows what the Climate will be in the next 5 or 9 years. I’m basically a sceptic, and sleeps well at night regarding climate change, but not so well regarding that we see an Atlantic rift that can be unrepairable.

        Trumps decision is symbolic and goes far beyond climate change. It would cost the US almost nothing to stay in the agreement, It’s one of the most non binding international agreements that ever has been made, but the symbolism can’t be understated. What’s next? EU and China on the same side in some drivel around Iran in United Nations Security Council?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      emeretis…”I have to disappoint You (mostly?) Americans on this blog”.

      Do you mean Canadian Americans, US Americans or Mexican Americans? We’re all part of the same continent….America.

      • Emeritus says:

        Old news, in Europe “Americans” is US citizens, in Your definition You have lost a whole Continent, what about the Argentinian Americans.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      emeretus…”My fear is that Trumps stupid decision today…”

      I’m a Canadian socialist and I have no problem with his decision, in fact, I applaud him for having the guts to do it. I am diametrically opposed to him on matters like social programs but I have not seen anything else he’s done that bothers me.

      I’m looking forward to the end of the Democratic whining so we can move on from the Russian allegations and open a dialog with Russia re tackling the terrorists. Well never get that done with the politically-correct snivelers who are currently running NATO.

  17. David L Hagen says:

    The far greater dangers are “the Big Splash” of a major asteroid strike, and global cooling causing the next glaciation.
    Population Vulnerability Models for Asteroid Impact Risk Assessment

  18. Kevin White says:

    Best news! Well done Mr. President! This was a victory for American sovereignty and a defeat for Marxist globalism. Obama and the cosmopolitan global elite wanted to use the Paris pact to redistribute American taxpayer dollars to the third world. What a relief to see Trump destroy that scheme. It feels nice to finally have a real president again.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Kevin White…”…and a defeat for Marxist globalism”.

      There’s no such thing as Marxism. People stole the name, like the Bolsheviks who corrupted Russia for umpteen years stole both the names communism and socialism. The Bolsheviks threw true communists and socialists into concentration camps.

      Karl Marx did not advocate the nonsense perpetuated in his name. He simply wanted a better deal for the working class and that was finally realized in democratic countries with socialism.

    • ren says:

      You can help poor countries to get cheap energy, for example from coal.

    • barry says:

      Wonderful achievement to walk away from a non-binding agreement.

  19. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Spencer,

    Very witty.

    Cheers.

  20. John Michelmore says:

    I’m sorry it must be a typo, shouldn’t that read Dr R Spencer Writer and Director. This website is certainly under paying you for this kind of comedy work. Well done you made me laugh.
    As an Australian I had doubts President Trump would keep his word; I’m happy to say I was wrong, hopefully this is the beginning of the avalanche that destroys the money making, power and socialist control scam that this was always about.
    I’m not sure I’d like to see you retire, many in Australia appreciate the work you do, one of the few sane voices in a sea of misguided drivel and emotion!

  21. Pathway says:

    Who says rocket scientests don’t have a sense of humor.

  22. barry says:

    Self-interest v common good.

    100 industrial companies are polluting a county’s largest river and main water supply. Gubmint and their own scientists tell them they collectively are making the water unsafe to drink. Government asks them all to agree to stop polluting. They do, spend money to install and maintain anti-pollution policies and devices.

    Shareholders of one company toss a CEO and the new one decides to increase profits by cutting anti-pollution policy and selling the equipment. Other companies notice that this one recalcitrant isn’t playing ball, see no equity in the situation, and they recommence polluting because competition.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      No, barry, that’s a different movie.

      In this movie, the 100 companies are stupidly going in a direction that will bankrupt them. The new CEO opts for a saner direction, hoping the others will follow.

    • An Inquirer says:

      Barry,
      That is a non-relevant, poorly-thought-out example. If a point source polluting entry is contaminating a stream, it can be sued by those hurt. Such a CEO is not acting in the best interest of shareholders and not helping profits.

      Of course, no doubt some would argue that the stream is the atmosphere and CO2 is the pollution. Such an argument would be hard to make when droughts are becoming less prevalent, hurricane activity is decreasing, tornadoes are down, crop production is up, the world is becoming greener, etc. Even if the reverse of these phenomena occur, it would be difficult to tie the trends to CO2. The models fail; the dire predictions do not come to place; in your story, you cannot substitute the atmosphere for the stream nor CO2 for the effluent.

    • barry says:

      I’m riffing on the movie Roy made up, not the one you guys made up.

      If a point source polluting entry is contaminating a stream, it can be sued by those hurt.

      I wonder how the US could be sued by someone in Bangladesh for rescinding on non-binding agreement. In my analogy, the government asks for compliance, there is no legislation to help the locals. To augment it further, the companies’ market is entirely international, so local boycotts are ineffective.

      The rest of your post is incidental to the ‘argument’ made in the top post. I knew when I posted that responses to my rebuttal (Tragedy of the Commons) would inevitably become rejection of the premise.

    • Ron Hongsermeier says:

      except CO2 isn’t a “pollutant”

    • barry says:

      Well that’s debatable. But here again we see criticism of a premise, not the logic.

  23. argus says:

    I don’t disagree with leaving agreements that will bind us to potentially bizarre standards. Let those who feel the heat make the strides in energy efficiency, then when that technology his the free market at reasonable cost and reliability, our companies can take advantage.

    Time has shown how inconsequential it was being first in space.

  24. Tim S says:

    The problem with Trump’s action is that it does nothing to challenge the exaggerated CMIP5 climate models. Unfortunately, he is just playing into media spin that he is crazy. What about the possibility of someone getting to Trump and suggest some kind of a science debate that would be shown on live television? You bring your experts, we will bring ours and let the data win!

    • gbaikie says:

      “What about the possibility of someone getting to Trump and suggest some kind of a science debate that would be shown on live television? You bring your experts, we will bring ours and let the data win!”

      It take much skill of the art of the deal to make that happen, warmists have continuously refused to debate with anyone who disagrees with them.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Tim S,

      Who cares about the CMIP5 climate models? What use have they been?

      There doesn’t seem to be much point in debating. The President has made a decision, undoing a previous President’s decision. What’s to debate?

      Cheers.

    • barry says:

      What about the possibility of someone getting to Trump and suggest some kind of a science debate that would be shown on live television?

      While we’re at it, let’s get those scientists who completely reject relativity theory to have a debate with the corrupt establishment.

      In reality, no televised debate could ever reveal the truth of complex science. It could only ever be a talking points session.

  25. Mark Lane says:

    Nate, you can check it out for yourself. The percentage of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide? 0.34% That’s 0.0034. That’s 3 seats in an arena of 10,000 seats! It is the food of life for every plant. And without plants, you are dead.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Mark, actually the figures are about 0.04%, or 0.0004, or 400 ppm.

      But, it is still harmless and does not “heat the planet”.

    • wert says:

      This must be a joke, or false flag. A person starts educating on how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere in Roy Spencer’s blog, and gets it wrong by factor of 8.5. Upwards.

      Anyway, the post was good, thanks, doc!

      • barry says:

        Yes, it’s 0.04%, not 0.4%. Not only is the figure out by an order of magnitude, it’s also nearly 30 years out of date.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Thankfully, we have managed to increase the percentage comfortably above the danger levels. (Most plants require at least 250 ppm.)

          Now, on to 500 ppm! Greening the planet, one ppm at a time!

        • barry says:

          I know you’re not a serious contributor here, but anyway, ice age CO2 concentrations are around 180ppm, so “most plants require at least 250ppm” would seem to be false.

          • The UK Ian brown says:

            Barry. according to horticulturalists.the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is between 1200 ppm and 2000 ppm.the recommended amount added to green houses and poly tunnels. 180 ppm is the minimum requirement for plant servival.at 150 ppm they begin to die.and photosynthesis ceases.so at 180 ppm the wee very close to starvation.

    • barry says:

      Such a small increase of atmospheric CO2 could not possibly be greening the planet.

      • uk ian brown says:

        Barry says such a small increase in atmospheric C02 could not possibly be greening the planet , sorry Barry but the increase of C02 is greening the planet ,its been recorded and photographed many times,

      • bilybob says:

        Yet we are to believe it can cause catastrophic increases in temperature, by some.

      • barry says:

        Ian,

        Thanks for that. Skeptics downplay CO2 influence on temps by citing small numbers – as in the post I here replied to.

        But when it comes to some argument that CO2 is a benefit, then by golly those tiny numbers sure do have an influence, like the greening of planet.

        The small numbers argument is rather fickle, eh?

    • Nate says:

      Its small percentage, for sure. What does that demonstrate? A multitude of phenomena arise from similarly small or even smaller percentages. Toxins or vitamins in our blood mean difference between life and death. Impurities in aluminum oxide give you a red ruby or blue sapphire. Dopants in silicon change it from insulator to useful conductor.

  26. michael hart says:

    Even James Hansen got his thinking right when rubbishing the Paris Climate Treaty Thing. It is the treaty for people who think global warming by CO2 is worse than death by nuclear war, but still not as bad as using nuclear power.

    With that kind of twisted logic, you know that Hollywood will support you.

    • wert says:

      Hansen is a denier, says Oreskes.

      This is pretty much like communism, they were also were eager to set up sects that were more and more right-thinking.

  27. Mike Flynn says:

    From the Guardian –

    “A statement from MIT said: The relevant MIT researchers believe that the Paris agreement is an unprecedented and vital effort by nearly 200 countries to respond to the urgent threat of global climate change.”

    Good for them! There’s nothing at all to stop them believing whatever they like. They might even believe in the GHE! Who cares what they believe? Not me, that’s for sure!

    Cheers.

    • wert says:

      And what above proves, is that The Guardian is a platform for communists, and as such, just some completely meaningless entertainment.

  28. uk ian brown says:

    DONALD TRUMP may not be as naive as many people make out,especially over the cost of climate policy by the IPCC, in an interview on NOV 13 2010. DR OTTMAR ENDENHOFER IPCC CO CHAIR WORKING GROUP 3 said this. we (UN-IPCC) redistribute DE FACTO THE WORLDS WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY, ONE HAS TO FREE ONESELF FROM THE ILLUSION THAT INTERNATION CLIMATE POLICY IS INVIROMENTAL POLICY, this has almost NOTHING to do with INVIROMENTAL POLICY ANYMORE, and quote,H/t Dr,charles battig

  29. stavro mueller says:

    @ dr spencer

    you keep saying that the poor require cheap energy to help them survive. The Paris agreement financial input was in part (from bbc):

    For rich countries to help poorer nations by providing “climate finance” to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy.

    Developing countries say they need financial and technological help to leapfrog fossil fuels and move straight to renewables.

    Currently they have been promised US $100bn (67bn) a year by 2020 – not as much as many countries would like.

    You now say it is right for them to fund their own energy, to use the lowest cost whatever the pollution.
    Should the poor ever achieve parity with the rich using fossil fuels then the world chokes, and the fuel runs out much quicker. Is it not best for the rich to help them “leapfrog” the pollution.
    The rich will anyway, provide most of the technology to help them do this. so some of the 100bn will be returned back to the rich.

    I do not understand why you are so against helping the poor nations.

    • jimc says:

      And what happens in these poor countries when they are given cash. It winds up in the hands of an Idi Amin, a Robert Mugabe, or some such thug who uses it to oppress them further. How about giving them the knowledge and energy to build an economy. That takes investment, not handout. I suggest the handout is for your own virtue signaling.

    • uk ian brown says:

      the only thing they will choke on STAVRO is the cost,it amounts to financial blackmail, do as we say or you wont get the cash,and for what,its marvellous how the great and the good can spend other peoples money,trying to fix what they can not fix,

    • Mike Flynn says:

      stavro mueller,

      I’m not sure why anyone is against helping the rich.

      Poor people are only rich people with no money.

      Why would you want to impoverish yourself giving all your assets to a nation of poor people? It seems a bit odd to me, but it is your choice.

      I wish you well. Don’t complain to me if you find you are poor, because you’ve given all your money away. You’ll get precious little sympathy.

      Cheers.

    • The U.S. is $20 Trillion in debt, and we need to stop propping up unsustainable economies. Free money has been a drug that they have become addicted to. Poor countries have access to the same renewable technology as we do, if they want to buy it. It’s their choice to use expensive renewable energy (electricity rates in the EU are as much as 2 to 3 times that in the U.S… renewable energy is expensive.)

      But it would be better to use inexpensive energy to get out of poverty.

      • stavro mueller says:

        RWS
        But it would be better to use inexpensive energy to get out of poverty.
        ——————
        Can you please explain how “the poor” will be connected to a non existent grid which will be connected to a rare resource of water (conventional energy requires cooling and steam)
        Can you explain how they will be able to use this cheap energy when they cannot afford appliances.
        who will pay for the multibillion power stations?

        you keep using the statement above but you never explain how this energy will be delivered and paid for.

        Are you perhaps suggesting that they all move to power sources and work 12 hours a day in sweat shops powered by cheap electricity.

        is this not a better start
        …a quality solar light meant to be used day in and day out, from durable materials, at a cost affordable to families who earn US$1.25 or less per day.

        Yingli Europe, …which has an end cost to buyers in Africa of just $5. The SM100 retails for Β£10 in the UK, where sales of the solar light will help to underwrite the distribution of two more SM100 lights in Africa for each one sold in the UK.

        How can you claim Christian values when you cross to the other side of the road when you could be the good Samaritan helping those less well off than yourself.

        Does the bible say think only of yourself?

        • The UK Ian brown says:

          Stevens there is no such thing as cheap energy.as there is no true green energy.it all requires investment and fossil fuels to manufacture and build solar wind and tidal.

  30. Cloudbase says:

    Come on Roy I need my monthly (temperature) fix. Gimme Gimme Gimme ! 😜😆

  31. Bob says:

    Nice science there. No parochialism on this site – oh no, just pure unpoliticised science.

  32. https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-were-warmer-than-today-for-most-of-the-past-10000-years/

    The data shows clearly that this period of time in the climate is not unique.

    In addition the little warming we have had since 1840 is coming to an end.

    Trump you did the right thing ! Excellent president the best we have ever had.

    • stavro mueller says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says: June 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM

      Trump you did the right thing ! Excellent president the best we have ever had.

      ————

      Really?

      few other leaders have been made the ultimate laughing stock of the rest of the world.

      Even Bush and Regan were more respected

      • I don’t care if we are a laughingstock to a bunch of countries whose claim to fame is artists and musicians who died hundreds of years ago. Some of us laugh at you, too. Your countries are slowly dying, culturally and economically.

        Good luck.

        • stavro mueller says:

          good greif RWS!

          the uk left the EU
          Do you still class as worthless artists in a dying country

          I wonder how astronauts get to and from the ISS. Is it by US technology?

      • The UK Ian brown says:

        Stavro. Who is laughing.time for the UK to scrap the silly Climate Change Act.before we finish up a basket case like Sweden and Australia

  33. dr No says:

    I see that DT aims to “re-negotiate” the Paris agreement.
    Given that the Paris agreement allows nations to select their own emissions targets and timelines, don’t get fooled into thinking the US is somehow being freed of some externally imposed burden.
    It isn’t.
    DT is simply making a song and dance to satisfy his voter base.
    Watch while he simply “re-negotiates” an almost identical soft target and timeline, and then claim the credit for being both “US-FIRST” and “ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE”.
    You must give him credit for being a clever operator.
    But then again, most Americans, especially the ones here, are easily conned

    • barry says:

      Yes, the agreements were non-binding. This is political theatre.

      • Steven Fraser says:

        Keep in mind that the Obama administration was using Paris as part of a one-two punch. Paris was the hand you could see. The hand less evident was embedded in the TPP, which elevated non-treaty climate agrememts to Treaty status. The TTP was far more dangerous.
        .

      • barry says:

        The US pulled out of the TPP in January. Has no impact on the recent announcement to pull out of the non-binding agreement. Trump’s announcement is effectively political grandstanding.

    • That remains to be seen. From what I’ve read, staying in the Paris agreement with the existing NDCs, even if “non-binding”, could have been used as part of a legal roadblock against getting rid of the Clean Power Plan. Trump has many smart advisors on both sides of the issue, and he knows full well how the courts can interfere with what he wants to do.

  34. Norman says:

    Does anyone else get bothered by the MSM “fake news”?

    Whenever I see a photo of a coal fired plant in the MSM it always is taken in such a way as to indicate this black foul gas emitted by the stack or cooling tower.

    If you took a photo on a hot summer day (while the unit was running you would see nothing).

    The material in the photo is water vapor. That is all you can see from modern US power plants with tight emission controls.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/a20c9c3c-b5a4-3ef2-8c91-77ba2bd633db/ss_here%E2%80%99s-a-full-list-of-nations.html

    These types of photos create this false image in the mind of the average Public that power plants are highly polluting and need to be shut down as soon as possible.

    • Yes, very common. The public are sheep who are herded by the media.

      • Harry Cummings says:

        There are millions of people around the world who are thinking at last we have some one to take on these pompous bludgers and religious driven greenies

        HC

      • Nate says:

        Yes, and a significant subset are herded by Fox News, Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc, into believing alternative facts.

    • The UK Ian brown says:

      Yes Norman in the UK they are all at it.from the BBC to Greenpeace Friends Of The Earth.and the Green Party.just don’t mention Polar Bears.how can you take people seriously when they ok not know the difference between wah wah and smoke.mothercare must be doing a roaring trade in dummies

  35. John says:

    “It won’t make a difference. We’re fucked anyway.”

  36. Dan Pangburn says:

    The Paris Accord, implemented or not, will have no detectable effect on climate.
    The observation that CO2 is a ghg (greenhouse gas) is a shallow penetration of the science and means only that it has an absorb/emit band within the range of significant earth OLR (outgoing longwave radiation).

    Delve deeper into the science and discover that CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.

    Here is why.

    1) Essentially all absorbed outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy is thermalized (i.e. shared with surrounding molecules).
    2) Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
    3) Emission of EMR from a gas is quantized and depends on the energy of individual molecules.
    4) This energy is determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
    5) The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution favors lower energy (longer wavelength) photons.
    6) Water vapor exhibits many (170+) of these longer wavelength bands.
    7) The Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution in atmospheric gas molecules effectively shifts the OLR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to the lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor. The notches in top-of-atmosphere measurements over temperate zones demonstrate the validity of this assessment.
    8) As altitude increases (to about 10 km) the temperature declines, magnifying the effect.

    The only thing countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring is the increasing trend in water vapor (WV). (Otherwise results from declining net effect of ocean cycles since 2005 and declining solar activity which has been declining since 2014 and dropped below ‘breakeven’ in early 2016). Average global atmospheric water vapor has been measured and reported by NASA/RSS since 1988 and shows an uptrend of 1.5% per decade. WV has increased about 8% since the more rapid increase began in about 1960. This is more than 2.5 times the expected rate from temperature increase alone (i.e. feedback).

  37. Frank says:

    Roy: No one can say how much cooling the Paris Agreement will produce without making assumptions about what happens after 2030. If you look at Figure S4 in the Supplementary Material in Lomborg’s paper, you will find that the Paris agreement – extended to 2100 – produces about 0.7 K of cooling. Current emissions levels extended to 2100 produces about 1.2 K of cooling.

    I’m sorry Roy, this is significant cooling. You have been fooled.

    Lomborg appears to have assumed that the rest of the world would revert to something like a pre-Kyoto business-as-usual scenario and deceptively called it “optimistic”. If you look, Chinese emissions grow about 50% after 2020 (75% above today) despite their pledge to peak emissions by 2030. Europe’s emissions rise 37% after 2030 even though it is well known that their current intention is to reach 80% reduction, possibly as early as 2050.

    No one knows what will actually happen after 2030 or before. Lomborg’s assumptions may turn out to be right – but they aren’t the current intentions of those committed to the Paris Agreement. And they aren’t “optimistic”. Has the credibility of the skeptical community disappeared since Trump got elected and continued spreading his lies? This skeptic is deeply concerned and would appreciate a response.

    Neither the abstract nor the text of the paper mention Figure S4. These scenarios appears to have been added at the request of a reviewer and then buried in the supplemental material.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Because the Paris Climate Accord does not address the rising trend of the ghg water vapor, its assessment of average global temperature change is without merit.

  38. Keith Noren says:

    Trump claimed the Paris Accords if implemented would only lead a a 0.2 C deg difference in global temperature. He took this supposedly from an MIT Study.

    Here is the official statement from MIT about this misuse of their study: http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602

    It makes clear the 0.2C difference was how much the Paris Accords (with the current non-binding Nationally Determined Contributions) would be better than the Copenhagen agreements (such as they were).

    From the MIT Statement
    First, the 0.2 degree-figure used in the talking point reflects the incremental impact of the Paris Agreement compared with the earlier Copenhagen agreement. If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. This would be a significant reduction in the global temperature rise, though much more is needed if the world is to achieve its goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less.

    Second, the analysis accounts only for countries pledges under the Paris Agreement, assuming no further strengthening of the commitments in years after 2030. The Paris Agreement is a milestone of the ongoing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is committed to ongoing annual meetings to regularly revisit and ratchet up nations climate goals, making them more ambitious over time.

    The relevant MIT researchers believe that the Paris Agreement is an unprecedented and vital effort by nearly 200 countries to respond to the urgent threat of global climate change.

    End MIT statement

    Mine statement below:
    Thus the MIT study says and recommends that we need more than just the Paris Accords if we are to limit warming to what scientists says we need to survive without serious degradations to our habitat (2C). Trump badly misuses the good name of MIT. Dont be fooled.

    Imo, there is some hope to keep the global temperature rise to under 2C (although since industrialization, we are already at ~ 1C increase). As our understanding of what we can withstand (and what we can do in terms of mitigation) increase, we as a global community can keep it under control without geoengineering (e.g sulfates additions to upper atmosphere). But “it takes a globe and the US should be part of that globe. We have reduced our gigs emissions by 12% since 2007.
    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26152

    One can disagree that 2C will lead to unacceptable habitats, but “business as usual” will certainly get us to 2C above 1900 levels be it measured with the UAH MSU/AMSU satellite instruments or ground-based measurements from GISS.

    • CoRev says:

      Keith, please read the MIT statement with some historical understanding, namely with this slight of hand: ” If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.” Comparing to no climate policy, when they started the statement with acknowledgment of both the validity of the .2C cited and the existence of climate policy: “First, the 0.2 degree-figure used in the talking point reflects the incremental impact of the Paris Agreement compared with the earlier Copenhagen agreement.”

      To what were you and MIT objecting?

  39. The UK Ian brown says:

    East Anglia uni said I had to buy a boat.last week the UK Met Office said we were in drought conditions and could expect hose pipe bans.its been raining off and on for two days now and doesn’t look like stopping any time soon.wonder where I left that boat

  40. Russell says:

    I have a concern to run by some “scientists”. NASA is sending a 670 lb rocket into the ionosphere with canisters of barium, strontium and cupric oxide to create “clouds and or vapor trails”. NASA says this is to study particle movement in the Ionosphere. I think it may be more of a test to see if they can reduce solar radiation to the Earths surface as they cancelled the 1st launch because of too many clouds. NASA is all about climate change. I do not think we should fool with Mother Nature as this does not seem harmless to me. Anybody else have any Oliver Stone conspiracy theories?

  41. boris karloff says:

    If you believe climate change is man made, then it is your responsibility to minimize your contribution to it. However the hypocrisy from those speaking the loudest on it (Al Gore, Holyweird types) says change is only required from others, not themselves. When they walk the walk and not just talk the talk, then and only then will they have any credibility. Al should give up mansions, limos and private jets and live a simple life with little to no carbon footprint.

Leave a Reply